3723-00-R Allied Construction Employees, Local 1030 United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Applicant v. 1360351 Ontario Inc. c.o.b. as Plus Construction, Responding Party v. Universal Workers Union, LIUNA Local 183.
BEFORE: David A. McKee, Vice-Chair, and Board Members J. G. Knight and G. McMenemy.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; April 19, 2001
1This is an application for certification made pursuant to the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, S.O. 1995 ch. 1 (the "Act"). There are two sets of issues, one relating to the list of persons entitled to cast a ballot, and the second to allegations of violations of the Act.
2The Registrar is directed to set this matter down for two days of hearing to deal with all of the evidence and argument with respect to the status of the individuals whose status is in dispute. The Board anticipates that parties may wish to see certain documents in the possession of the responding party or intervenor. If so, the parties are directed to turn their minds to what they want, and to arrange for production among themselves or request the Board to deal with the issue in writing before the hearing dates. The Board notes it has no power to order production from persons who are not parties (i.e. the persons whose status is in dispute).
3The intervenor has raised an issue with respect to the Board’s earlier decision with respect to section 8.1. First, the Board notes that the term “employer” in section 8.1(1) does not include a trade union. In any event, the Board is required to determine at the time the vote is ordered whether or not there is a valid and numerically relevant notice given under section 8.1. If there is, the ballot box must be sealed pursuant to section 8.1(4). This is not a determination that can be put off to a later date. Accordingly, there is no reason to reconsider the decision at this point.
4If, of course, the responding party (or the intervenor, assuming it has the status to do so) wishes to request the Board to revisit the issue in order to save the applicant from a dismissal which would result in a statutorily imposed bar (as opposed to one under section 8.1 where such a bar is possible but not automatic), it should feel free to do so.
“David A. McKee”
for the Board